Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

dpa-international.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 1001 posts

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#401

Post by quickthrowman »

foolfoolz wrote: post #323
Alexsky2 wrote: post #253

A bit unrelated to the Belgium story but I recently visited Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo, CA and learned a ton about the technical details, safety systems, and policy decisions that go into operating a nuclear power plant. When operating at full capacity, it provides up to 10% of California power! While there is certainly always more such facilities can do for safety and efficiency, my impre…

diablo canyon has 2 reactors that can make 1.1MW per hour continuously. about 2.2MW/hr they both aren’t always on but that’s the goal. It’s closer to 2MW/hr actual the largest solar plant in california is Ivanpah. It made 85GW/year. Thats 97MW/hr. It would take 20 clones of Ivanpah to match one diablo canyon. Ivanpah took 4 years to build, cost 2.5B and was in discussions to close because it’s not cost effective. htt…

Diablo Canyon can output 2.2 GW, if you assume 50% (1.1 GW) for the sustained output, I come up with 9636 GWh per year, or ~19,200 GWh per year if it was able to run at 100%

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#402

Post by brightball »

subscribed wrote: post #90
brightball wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This means having a kid loses parents around one quarter to one third of their total lifetime income. There's no better investment.

Do you suggest every generation has it better in terms of the disposable income, so the kids can easily afford to support themselves _ and _ fund their parents retirement? :)

I suggest that the costs around children are a marketing scare tactic from people who want to create a fear of having children.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#403

Post by pqtyw »

thrownthatway wrote: post #280
swiftcoder wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How much money does it really cost? The problem is as much time as it is money. We have reactors producing energy now, it will take a decade plus to replace them, and due to both climate policy and supply issues around the wars in Russia and the Middle East, we can't afford to do without the energy for that decade...

> climate policy Fuck climate policy . There could be an earthquake any moment now that ruptures a massive natural CO formation that would eclipse any anthropogenic generated emissions in matter of hours. What have we done to mitigate that risk? Nothing . There is a non-zero chance Earth will be relieved of the responsibility of harbouring complex life any moment now by a loose pile of gravel travelling at 60 kilomet…

Air pollution has a direct negative impact on everyone's quality of life, I don't see why would you chose to decouple from "food-housing-energy". Coal would still be a bad deal even if climate change wasn't a concern.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#404

Post by [deleted] »

lifty wrote: post #66

There's a very dark scenario where for some reason or another (all out nuclear war or asteroid hit) sunlight is blocked, in which case having stable base load energy production from nuclear would be very useful. I know this is an unlikely scenario and hopefully it never happens, but it's always good to think about tail risks like these.

[deleted]

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#405

Post by bobim »

mpweiher wrote: post #365
rmoriz wrote: post #197

I‘m very interested in the financials of this decision. Nuclear plants are designed for base loads but are way more expensive than solar and wind energy. The losses will increase the costs of energy.

Actually, nuclear is not way more expensive. And already-built nuclear is pretty much the cheapest power you can get.

It's cheap because we are offsetting the cost if its ultimate pollution onto future generations. We do this for everything else, and nuclear is our best chance for a liveable planet - if we don't want to make the slightest effort to give up on our comfort. But we have the belief that humanity will be able to manage nuclear waste for the next 100k years while we don't know how the pyramids were built... and it was only 3k years ago.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#406

Post by db48x »

CalRobert wrote: post #389
foolfoolz wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

diablo canyon has 2 reactors that can make 1.1MW per hour continuously. about 2.2MW/hr they both aren’t always on but that’s the goal. It’s closer to 2MW/hr actual the largest solar plant in california is Ivanpah. It made 85GW/year. Thats 97MW/hr. It would take 20 clones of Ivanpah to match one diablo canyon. Ivanpah took 4 years to build, cost 2.5B and was in discussions to close because it’s not cost effective. htt…

What does 2.2 MW/hour mean?

It doesn't. Watts were a mistake by whatever committee it was that standardized unit names. Power should not have been given a unit; it should have been left as ∆energy/time just as velocity is distance/time.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#407

Post by marcosdumay »

pjc50 wrote: post #239
herecomesyour_ wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heartening to see someone talking about both the pros and cons. I find here and on, for example reddit or twitter, that people are unanimously in favour of Nuclear. I really don't think costs and delays are well understood. The costs are astronomical and in the UK the cost of energy has been monstrously subsidized. Consumers (public) are paying for this before the plants are running and for hundreds of years after th…

> Even small modular reactors fail to address this. I'd be willing to engage with SMRs on the merits of actually constructed systems, but if you open https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-power-... and restrict to "operational" all but two of the projects disappear.

One in China and one in Russia.

I doubt they are talking about the same thing as the US companies. So it would be useless to extrapolate their economics.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#409

Post by throwaway2037 »

Alexsky2 wrote: post #253

A bit unrelated to the Belgium story but I recently visited Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo, CA and learned a ton about the technical details, safety systems, and policy decisions that go into operating a nuclear power plant. When operating at full capacity, it provides up to 10% of California power! While there is certainly always more such facilities can do for safety and efficiency, my impre…

I did some research about that nuclear power plant. In 1985 dollars, the total construction cost was 5.6B USD. That is an astonishing amount of money. That is at least 16B USD in 2026 money. If you also include decomissioning costs of about 4-5B USD... how the fuck does nuclear power make any economic sense? PV solar plus batteries: ALL THE WAY. To be clear, I am not anti-nuclear power by any means. I think it is a terrific way to power our countries, but the ship has sailed. PV solar has won, and now we can add batteries (and some wind) to get reliability.
Post reply on HN